From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7243 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2012 07:14:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 7230 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jan 2012 07:14:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:14:00 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5C32BB099; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:13:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id D9Q0aJ7CoXCL; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:13:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426092BB098; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:13:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5F8DF145615; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:13:46 +0400 (RET) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:50:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/commit] Rename la_get_symbol_name_match_p into la_get_symbol_name_cmp Message-ID: <20120130071346.GC31383@adacore.com> References: <1327906522-19961-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20120130070053.GA5994@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120130070053.GA5994@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00981.txt.bz2 Thanks for spotting the missing changes... > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:55:22 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > unless there are better naming suggestions? > > Maybe "la_get_symbol_name_no_match"? As you note yourself: It's an interesting suggestion, but it introduces double-negatives, and I'd rather not do that. Not that it's critically important, I'll use whatever name is prefered by most. I'll wait a day or two to collect feedback, and send a new patch. Thanks again, -- Joel